asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has ascertained from the Coal Control Department the number of pits which have been closed down by exhaustion during the period of control?

During the last two years 180 coal mines or seams were abandoned, 197 were opened, and 89 were reopened. The majority, it should be pointed out, were small shallow mines.

asked if the 1s. 2d. per ton is intended to be a flat rate or will some owners get more, as much as 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d., and others get less, say 3d. or nothing?

The 1s. 2d. per ton. is not intended to be a flat rate. A pool will be formed equal in amount to the aggregate output in tons multiplied by 1s. 2d., and undertakings will draw from the pool in proportion to their pre-war standard of profits.

In the case of a colliery company which owns a number of pits, some of which make more than 1s. 2d. and others less or nothing, will the colliery company in question draw 1s. 2d. on the whole of their output, or will they be able to average 1s. 2d. on their whole output?

I do not quite follow the point raised. Each undertaking will draw in relation to its standard.

Will regard be had to the increase of output as compared with pre-war output?

That is a matter which might properly be discussed at a later stage. The present proposal—and this is what the coal owners as a whole point out—is that for this year the profits should be drawn from the pool on a basis of pre-war standard.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has ascertained the present costs of sinking, and consequently capital expenditure now necessary to sink, as compared with the cost during the five pre-war years; and, if so, will he state what the comparison of cost is?

No detailed investigation into the present cost of sinking has been made, and as such cost is necessarily spread over a number of years, during which conditions and consequently costs may vary considerably, the results of any such investigation—which would involve much expenditure of time and labour—could only be in the nature of an estimate.

Is it not safe to assume that the present cost is something more than double?

It might be quite safe to assume that, but if I said that I assumed that, it would not be an answer to the question I have been asked.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, with reference to his statement that there will be a profit of £17,000,000 in the hands of the Coal Controller for the present financial year, he will state the cost of production of the total output, and the estimated quantity and selling price of coal for domestic gas and electricity use, for export, for colliery consumption, including miners' coal, and for general industrial use, respectively; how he proposes to effect the reduction of 10s. per ton, having regard to the Price of Coal Limitation Act of 1915; and from what fund does he propose to make up the price directed to be charged by Orders made under that Act?

The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 28th November, column 1117, he will, I think, find that the figure of £17,000,000 to which he refers is not expected to be in the hands of the Coal Controller at any time. In view of the investigation which is now being made by an independent firm of chartered accountants, I do not think it is advisable to anticipate their Report, which will be laid before the House in due course. The reduction of 10s. per ton is given effect to under the provisions of the Coal (Pit's Mouth) Prices Order and direction, dated the 29th November. With regard to the third part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member will now be in possession of a print of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill, under the provisions of which it is proposed to regulate the profits of coal-owners for this year.

Is the Coal Controller now asking colliery companies to finance a loss which would be declared on the maximum price?

No, Sir; that is not what the Coal Controller is discussing with the coal-owners. It is those collieries in which it is reasonably anticipated that there will be a surplus over the 1s. 2d. from whom the coal levy will in the normal course be raised. They are being asked to finance the reduced price in the case of domestic coal. That only applies to those collieries and not to other collieries in which the loss is over all.

If these owners refuse to contribute, will this not mean that the reduction of 10s. will be a loss to the Treasury?

It would depend upon the result of the procedure in this House in connection with the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill. If that Bill becomes law it would not be open to the coal-owners to refuse to contribute.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the official estimate that, taking the last four weeks in tile coal industry, the highest figures obtainable without any stoppages or without any holidays represent 200 tons per person employed, and the official estimate that the average number of persons employed in the latest period for which figures are available was 1,154,500, he will say whether the best four weeks since 16th July were the weeks ending 18th October, 25th October, 8th November, and 15th November; whether the average weekly output for those four weeks was 4,743,090 tons; whether that represents an output at the rate of 246,640,680 tons per annum and of 213 tons per person employed; and, if so, whether he will say on what the official estimate of 200 tons was based?

I presume the hon. Member alludes to the statement made by me in the course of the Debate in the House on the 28th November. My statement had reference to the best consecutive four weeks' output we have had since 14th July, weeks in which there were no holidays or stoppages to affect the figures seriously. Taking these output figures as a basis for estimating an annual output after making due allowance for holidays and stoppages, and having regard to the average number of persons employed during these four weeks, namely, 1,163,500, an annual output per person employed of approximately 200 tons is arrived at.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman asserted that if you take four weeks' output as the basis, without any stoppage or without any holidays, you cannot get more than 200 tons annually per man? Here is the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I do not think so. That was not what was in my mind. I said the best four weeks. I did not mean the best four isolated weeks. Taking the recognised holidays into consideration it turned out that we get 200 tons per person employed per annum.

What allowance in the estimate does the right hon. Gentleman make from now to the remainder of the year for holidays and stoppages?

It is not a question of the remainder of the year, but a yearly rate calculated from a four weeks' period. Therefore, one would have to allow the usual holidays—Christmas, New Year, Easter, Whitsuntide, and August.

asked whether, with reference to the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton of coal raised which the Interim Report of 20th March, 1919, of the Sankey Committee recommended should be allowed to coal-owners, he will state on what basis of calculation that sum was arrived at, and what Clauses of the Coal Mines Control Agreement of 28th July, 1917, have a bearing on this question; whether the anticipations and assumptions as to output profits and prices which were made in Clauses 9 and 10 of the Interim Report above referred to have been verified by events; if not, in what respect they have proved inaccurate; and whether these inaccuracies vitiate the basis and calculations on which the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton was arrived at?

Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues who signed the Interim Report have not furnished to the Government any statement of the basis of calculation on which they arrived at the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton raised which they recommended should be allowed to coal-owners; the evidence which they had before them has been published in three volumes, of which the third sets out tables of figures put in by witnesses, from which it appears that 1s. 2d. per ton is slightly in excess of the average profit of the last five pre-war years. The Clauses of the Coal Mines Control Agreement which bear upon the amount of profits receivable or retainable by owners are 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15, but there is no reason to think that these Clauses were considered in the calculation of the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton. The anticipations and assumptions as to output profits and prices which were made in Clauses 9 and 10 of the Interim Report have not so far been verified by events. Had Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues been able to predict the events which have happened since they made their recommendations, I cannot say what differ- ence, if any, it would have made in the basis and calculations on which the sum of 1s. 2d. per ton was arrived at.

In view of the fact that these estimates made by the Sankey Commission have proved to be inaccurate, is there not a case for a reinvestigation of the process by which they arrived at the 1s. 2d.?

What is the average return per cent. on the capital invested represented by the 1s. 2d. per ton?

I would not like to give a figure as to that without notice. In reference to the other point, the figure 1s. 2d. was accepted by the Government at the time as a proper basis on which the whole finance in reference to coal production should be founded, and that figure has been adopted since then.

Is it not a fact that on Friday week the House by a large majority refused to investigate the figures which the hon. Member for York now wants investigated?

Did not the Commission deal not with profits but with wages and hours?

Necessarily the question of profits came in as soon as the question of wages was being discussed. They are inextricably bound up together in all our operations.

Is not it open to the House and the Government without any breach of trust to reconsider the amount of 1s. 2d. a ton in view of the facts as they have turned out?

I hesitate to express any opinion as to what the House would do without any breach of faith, but I do not think that the Government would very easily depart from the undertaking given without very good reason being shown in the House without coming somewhere near a breach of faith.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the aggregate of the pre-war standards of all the colliery undertakings after deducting the amounts representing the profits arising from sources other than the raising of coal?

Estimates of the pre-war standards of colliery undertakings are given in Tables 1, 4 and 7 of Appendix 54 to the Minutes of Evidence of the Coal Industry Commission. These standards include profits arising from sources other than the raising of coal, which profits cannot be estimated so far as the standards are concerned.

The 1917 estimated standards stated are:

Table.	Concerns.	Amount.
1.	Non-composite	£9,899,000
4.	Composite, which include coke ovens	10,266,000
7.	Composite, which do not include coke ovens	3,248,000

asked how many registered coal merchants have been prosecuted under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, and the Order for 1919, respectively?

The number of registered coal merchants and dealers prosecuted under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, was 240; under the Order for 1919, the number is 93 up to the present date.

Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to see that the people get coal in my district, where the merchants have not been selling coal?

I think that that is a question of delivery of coal in the district, which has been already discussed in this House, and it has been explained that the difficulty was transport, that the matter was in hand, and that a solution, it was hoped, was being found.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the Coal Controller's divisional or other representatives, appointed under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, were previously in the employment of colliery proprietors, coal merchants, factors, or any person directly or indirectly interested in the sale of coal?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a detailed Return of the figures upon which the 6s. per ton increase on coal was based in July last?

The figures upon which the 6s. per ton increase in the price of coal was based are set out in detail in a White Paper (Cmd. 252) presented to Parliament last July

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will pay compensation to gas and electric lighting undertakings which held stocks of coal purchased before the. 10s. reduction in price, in order to enable these undertakings to make an immediate reduction in their charges for gas and electricity supplied for household purposes?

I fear that it is not practicable to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain areas in London the price of electricity has gone up since the reduction in the price of coal?

I am aware that in certain cases, which had been decided on before the reduction in the price of coal was announced, there has been an increase, and I think that the two cases are absolutely at one, but that does not mean that there will not be a reduction at the earliest possible moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could explain the estimate in paragraph 7 of Mr. Justice Sankey's First Report that the cost of the reduction in hours would be £13,000,000?

Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues who signed the Interim Report have not furnished to the Government any statement explaining the estimate that the cost of the reduction in hours would be £13,000,000.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would, by Wednesday next, before the Debate upon the Second Reading of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill, circulate a Paper showing in summary form the total sales of coal for export and bunkers, both foreign and home-trade, with the approximate total f.o.b. prices received therefor during each of the months of the present year and, by way of comparison, the total quantities and prices received for the year 1918; and how much more had been received for exports and bunkers than was anticipated by Mr. Justice Sankey when he said, in paragraph 10 of his first Report, that there would be a loss of about £9,000,000 on present prices?

I will arrange for the statement asked for, as far as the figures are available, to be printed in the OFFICIAL

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the stocks of coal at the pit's head in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Staffordshire had materially increased since coal for bunkering purposes from these districts had been prohibited for shipment in the Mersey ports; what the total quantity of the accumulated

The total stock of coal at the pits' head in the three counties named has increased by 282,000 tons during the period in question, but 243,000 tons of the increase took place during the railway strike.

The total quantity of the coal accumulated at the pit in the three counties at the present time is as follows:

	Tons.
Lancashire	165,000
Yorkshire	241,000
Staffordshire	54,000
	460,000

The total net increase since the end of the railway strike is only 15,000 tons. Stocks are decreasing in Lancashire and Staffordshire, and every effort is being made to improve the supply of wagons for the transport of coal from collieries in Yorkshire.

May I ask whether, in view of these figures, the right hon. Gentleman will not permit more coal to be sent from South Yorkshire for export?

The whole trouble comes in the sending. That is the whole difficulty—getting it away.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an Order was issued by the Coal Controller during the Yorkshire coal strike in July last limiting purchases of coal in the Metropolitan area to 2 hundredweight per week?

The answer is in the affirmative. In this connection I have to apologise to the hon. Member for having unwittingly given him wrong information in a letter which I wrote to him on the 3rd December and for having questioned the accuracy of his statement in the Debate of 28th November. An Order was issued on 22nd July limiting deliveries in the Metropolitan area to 2 cwt. per week and was withdrawn on 28th July. This I had entirely lost sight of. In these circumstances I can only apologise for the mistake which I made and thank the hon. Member for this opportunity of correcting my error.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the colliery companies would be assessed to Excess Profits Duty for the year ending 31st March, 1920, as separate entities; whether, in the event of the profits of an individual company for that year exceed- ing its profits standard, it would be liable to pay Excess Profits Duty, notwithstanding the fact that the profits retainable by it would he less than its profits standard; whether, in the event of its profits being less than its profits standard, it would be able to claim by reason of such deficiency repayment of Excess Profits Duty out of duties previously paid by it; and whether, in the former case, the receipt of Excess Profits Duty by the Treasury would constitute a tax on the consumer of coal and, in the latter case, the repayment of Excess Profits Duty by the Treasury would constitute a subsidy to the coal industry from the national exchequer?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In the event of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill becoming law, a colliery company will be liable to Excess Profits Duty for the year ending 21st March, 1920, only if its profits, after taking into account "coal levy" and "coal award" under the provisions of that Bill, exceed the pre-war standard of profits. Where such profits are less than the pre-war standard of profits, a title to repayment of Excess Profits Duty will arise under the provisions of Section 38 (3) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, as subsequently amended. With regard to the fourth part of the question, the first case does net arise and the second case is governed by the statutory provisions relating to Excess Profits Duty which are applicable to all businesses affected by it and are not peculiar to the coal industry.

asked to what approximate extent it may be roughly assumed that the value of our invisible exports will reduce the excess of value of our imports over our exports for the eleven months ending 30th November, 1919; and, similarly, for the whole year 1919?

It is roughly estimated that the excess value of imports over exports of merchandise during the period of eleven months ended 30th November is offset to the extent of about three-fourths by the earnings of British shipping interest on British investment abroad, banking, insurance, and other commissions, the value of bunker coal, etc. Precise figures are, in the nature of the case, not ascertainable, but I anticipate that the figure of three-fourths will not be far wrong on the working of the whole year.

Does that mean, roughly, that we shall have undisclosed invisible exports to the amount of over £450,000,000 out of a possible £600,000,000 excess of imports?

These figures are very rough. Somewhere about that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government will consider the excision of the plenary powers to prevent dumping given to the Trade Regulation Committee under the Imports and Exports Bill; whether it is proposed to set up a representative Court of Appeal against decisions of the Trade Regulation Committee; and whether he will be prepared to extend the limit of members of the Committee, in order that they may include members of the. chambers of commerce, employers, and trade unions?

The points raised by the hon. Member could, I think, be most conveniently considered when the Bill is in Committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can state in tonnage (weight and cubic measurement) the total amount of imports into this country during the year 1913 and the total amount of exports in tonnage

Information as to the cubic measurement of imports and exports is not available. I will have the other information asked for in these questions circulated as Statistical Tables in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In view of the statistics published to-day and the serious discrepancy between imports and exports, and the adverse effect which this has upon exchange and the prices of food in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that articles of luxury and nonessentials either should be prohibited from being imported or restricted?

That would raise very difficult controversial questions. At present the visible exports amount to about three-fourths of the difference between the exports and the imports, and the exports are moving in the right direction, and so now are the imports. The quantities of luxuries imported are very small.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the employés in the spinning department of the linen trade are only working half-time, and that very shortly these works will be closed down entirely; whether he is aware that this is caused by shortage of raw material, namely, flax, and that this trade is largely dependent on material grown in Russia; whether he can say if there are large stocks in Russian territory now occupied by troops friendly to this country; and, if so, what measures are being taken to procure this material, so vital to the interests of all concerned?

I am aware that the output of the flax spinners, which is at present limited to six-elevenths of their normal production, may have to be still further reduced in the near future, in consequence of the shortage of raw material, of which Russia was the principal source of supply before the War. I understand that the stocks of flax available for shipment from Baltic ports fall far below the quantities normally exported from Russia to this country. At the desire of the trade the Government purchase of Russian flax ceased shortly after the Armistice, and the task of obtaining supplies reverted to private hands. I understand that some shipments are being arranged.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that by direction of the Ministry of Shipping British steamers carry wheat from the Argentine to this country at 62s. 6d. per ton, and that rates of freight earned by other steamers to Continental ports are about 200s. per ton; whether he is aware that all these steamers obtain bunker coal from British coaling depots at the Argentine and en en route to ports of discharge at the same price; whether he can see his way, with a view to reducing the price of food in this country, to arrange to charge all steamers bringing food to this country at the Ministry of Shipping rate of freight the same price for bunker coal, but charging a higher price for bunker coal to steamers carrying cargoes to other countries at the greatly enhanced rates of freight; and whether he is aware that a precedent for such action has been established by the action of the United States authorities in refusing to supply bunker coal to foreign steamships (British) until after American steamers have been supplied?

The points raised by the hon. Member have been prominently before me for some time and have received and are receiving most careful consideration, both by the Board of Trade and the Shipping Controller. At present I am unable to discover any satisfactory and fair method of carrying out the suggestions put forward. The points will, however, not be lost sight of.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that anything that can be done to reduce the price of food in this country is desirable, and that by obtaining the enhanced prices suggested in this question he would also help the financial position?

There are no two opinions as to the desirability of reducing the price of food and other necessaries, but the suggestion put forward in this question is s very difficult one to carry out.

Are not high height rates very largely responsible for the high prices of food?

That is not the case. The freight at which food is carried on Government account is quite a low freight. In same cases it is right down to cost, and the shipowner who actually carries it gets no profit. One of the causes of the high prices of food is, of course, the exchange.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would state the reason for prohibiting the importation of ferro-tungsten; whether, in view of the fact that ferro-chrome and ferro-tungsten were both equally essential in respect of the manufacture of special steels, whatever conditions of import applied to one ought to apply to the other; whether, in view of the fact that the relative value of exchange with France was against the British manufacturers of ferro-chrome in the open market, he would take whatever steps were necessary to place manufacturers of ferro-chrome in no less favourable position than the manufacturers of ferro-tungsten; whether he was aware that the differential treatment as between Ferro-tungsten and ferrochrome had resulted in the closing down of valuable plant for the manufacture of the latter material with the consequent unemployment of workpeople who were specially trained for this work during the War; and whether, having regard to the fact that chrome ore was an Empire product which was I he subject of close Continental control before the War, he would take such steps as would preserve the manufacture of ferro-alloys which had been so costly to establish during the past five years?

Ferro-tungsten and tungsten powder have been placed in the Schedule of products of Unstable Key Industries, of which the importation is prohibited because of their importance in the manufacture of high-speed steel, which is essential for the engineering industries, and the fact that before the War the United Kingdom was entirely dependent for the supply of these products upon Germany. It is difficult to compare the relative values of various alloys with differing applications, and though the importance of ferro-chrome is. I think, fully recognised, the Government felt that the case for its special treatment was less strong that that of the substances and articles whose importation they have restricted. The difficulties in which British manufacturers are placed are, I understand, mainly due to the existence of large stocks in this country. The hon. Member will no doubt have an opportunity of raising the matter again when the House comes to consider in detail the problem of safeguarding key industries.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how many representatives of British trading firms have been provided with accommodation on British warships proceeding to foreign ports; how many representatives have already sailed; how many applicants are awaiting berths; if their firms are being charged for such accommodation; what arrangements have been made for their periodic return; and if any objections have been lodged by officers of the Royal Navy against the use of warships for such purpose?

Detailed arrangements for providing accommodation on British warships for representatives of British trading firms are still under discussion with the Admiralty, and no accommodation has yet been finally allotted. There are on the lists of my Department 300 applications for assistance in obtaining passages to overseas ports, but it is anticipated that accommodation can be found for a very large proportion of these applicants on ordinary liners. I have not thought it necessary to discuss with the Admiralty the question of obtaining return passages, since there is much less difficulty in obtaining homeward berths and no applications for such passages have been received. As regards charges for accommodation on His Majesty's ships, I would refer him to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on the 26th November, in which it is stated that a charge will be made of 12s. a day for the first fourteen days, and 9s. a day afterwards. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Are the Admiralty making any difficulty in regard to granting these passages?

Quite the contrary. The First Lord of the Admiralty is doing everything in his power to expedite accommodation on ships that are going abroad and to make arrangements for commercial travellers and business men to go on board.

Then will he state the reason of the delay?

asked the Minister of Transport if he can make any statement with regard to the new Railway Committee?

It will be convenient if I explain the position as regards the negotiations with the railway companies and men. There are three aspects.

The first point is the present negotiations on wages. On this, as the Prime Minister stated last Thursday, no public statement can yet be made. I fully appreciate the anxiety of the House and will make one at the earliest moment possible.

The second point is that an arrangement has been come to between the Government and the two unions concerned in the conciliation grades on the railways that, apart from the present negotiations, questions of wages and conditions of service shall, during the period of the present control of railways, under the Ministry of Transport Act, be dealt with by a Central Board, consisting of five railway managers and five representatives of the trade unions, the latter being composed as to three from the National Union of Railway men and two from the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Fire-men, with power to each side to add a sixth member.

Failing agreement by this Central Board, matters in dispute and belonging to the category mentioned—namely, wages and conditions of service—will be referred to a National Wages Board, consisting of four railway managers, four railway workers (or their representatives), and four users of railways (of which one shall be nominated by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, one by the Co-operative Union, one by the Federation of British Industries, after consultation with other industrial organisations, and one by the Associated Chamber of Commerce, after similar consultation) with an independent chairman appointed by the Government. It has been agreed by the unions concerned that no strike shall take place on account of a dispute arising on these matters until one month after the question in dispute has been referred to the National Wages Board.

Local committees, to which matters of purely local and other than national importance are to be referred, will be set up, and discussions are taking place a the present time as to their constitution, scope and functions.

The third matter which has formed the subject of conversation with the railway- men is their representation in connection with the control exercised under the Ministry of Transport Act.

The Railway Executive Committee—as such—will cease to exist (probably on 1st January), and an Advisory Committee will then be set up. It will consist of twelve general managers and four representatives of the workers.

I will have the names of this Committee printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the many complaints regarding the greatly increased fares charged on tramways under the management of public bodies, rivalling, if not exceeding, the charges on omnibuses owned by companies which are seeking to make a, dividend; and whether, seeing that the object of Parliament in granting the London County Council and similar authorities a practical monopoly of the public thoroughfares was to serve the interests of the community rather than to earn a dividend, before granting additional powers to these bodies, he will make it a condition that the claims of the travelling public shall have first consideration?

Certain tramway undertakers have been empowered to increase fares in accordance with the provision of the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918. Where the undertakers are a local authority, no modification may be authorised which will in any case increase the statutory maximum by more than 50 per cent. or by an amount which is more than sufficient to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss. In view of the increases in wages and other expenses, increased charges are in some cases warranted; but the hon. Member may rest assured that the claims of the travelling public are given full weight in connection with the consideration of all such applications.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he was aware that the railway wagons loaded with Durham coke and sent into Cumberland were brought back empty; and whether he would consider the possibility of using those wagons on the return journey for bringing Cumberland coke to the North-Eastern ports, thereby making greater use of the wagons and assist in increasing employment at the Cumberland coke ovens which were now working at less than half their capacity?

I am aware of this movement of coke in both directions, and am inquiring as to the best means of dealing with it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention had been called to the unpunctual running of the local services of the London and South-Western Railway Company; and whether he would take any steps to secure its improvement?

I am aware of unpunctuality in the running of local services on the London and South Western Railways during the last two or three weeks, and am informed that the company is doing its utmost to effect an improvement, and that some success has so far attended their efforts.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the overcrowded travelling conditions prevailing between Clapham Junction and Waterloo Stations on the London and South-Western Railway, and whether some additional rolling stock can be provided to relieve the serious inconvenience to passengers which now exists during the morning and evening train services?

The London and South-Western Railway Company ordered some months ago carriages to strengthen the electric trains running between Clapham Junction and Waterloo, but completion has been held up owing to the Moulders' strike.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the main roads in North Wales were dangerous, and, in some places, quite unfit for horse traffic on account of the method of tarring the surface without using stone shippings; and whether he would issue instructions to the authorities concerned to treat the roads in such a way that they might be useful for agriculturists as well as for motorists?

I have no knowledge that the main roads in North Wales are dangerous or unfit for horse traffic. I am, however, aware that owners and users of horses are, generally, complaining of the unsuitability of tar-bound and tar-treated roads for horses. Realising the great importance of the subject, I have caused an expert Committee to be set up, who will make inspections and experiments, and advise as to the remedies to be undertaken with a view of securing better foothold.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he was aware that considerable delay in the transport of merchandise was owing to the shortage of wagons; whether the shortage of wagons was due in many instances to the refusal of owners to repair wagons and to build new ones until they knew exactly the policy of the Government and the compensation which they were to receive if the wagons were taken over; whether he was aware that the matter was now of great national urgency and importance; and what course he proposed to take regard to the matter?

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention had been called to the serious loss of output and employment at the Consett Steel Works, county Durham, through the fact that the North-Eastern Railway Company had not supplied an adequate number of trucks to convey the finished steel to customers; whether he was aware that, during the four weeks ended 26th November, certain of the mills lost fourteen shifts from the above cause and that they had since been stopped again, with a very serious effect on the prosperity of the district; whether during the War trucks were available for a larger output than the present output of these mills; and whether trucks had been diverted to other traffic; and, if so, why?

asked the Minister of Transport whether, and, if so, when he proposed to make a statement in the House on the congestion of goods traffic?

asked the Minister of Transport how many trucks were required to relieve the traffic congestion on the railways; whether he could give any estimate of the number now under construction and under repair; whether the facilities for new construction were being utilised to the fullest extent, and what causes, if any, were operating to retard new construction; whether the moulders strike was affecting this question and, if so, to what extent; whether he could give any indication of its effect upon the cost of living; whether a complete declaration of Government policy with regard to the future of the railways could be made; and whether the removal of Government control and the resumption of competition between the various companies would affect the situation, and to what extent?

I am most anxious to take the House fully into my confidence on this matter, and to afford the fullest information. I find it is impossible to do justice to its intricacies in replies to questions, and if it will suit the convenience of Members, I propose meeting those interested in Committee Room 9 at 6 p.m. on Thursday next. I should be personally very grateful if Members with special knowledge could conveniently attend.

Is not the proper place to deal with this question on the floor of the House, and not at a private meeting?

We do not intend to have the meeting in the least private, but open to every Member who wishes to attend. [HON MEMBERS: "And the Press?"] I will invite the Press. I find it quite impossible to deal adequately with this question by question and answer. If Parliamentary time will be afforded for Debate I shall be very glad to take that course, but as an alternative I suggest the meeting upstairs.

Is not the Coal Bill being introduced into the House on that afternoon?

If that is not a convenient day I shall be delighted to change it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this matter should be dealt with as quickly as possible, as the present state of transport throughout the country is deplorable?

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange the meeting for this afternoon?

I cannot arrange it for this afternoon. If Thursday is not convenient, would Friday be more convenient?

No; Wednesday.

Considering the great importance of this matter, would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman first to issue a statement as to the Government's proposals regarding wagons? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is very difficult for hon. Members to arrive at any conclusion until they have had a definite statement as to what the Government think is desirable to be done?

I shall be very glad to consider that when we meet hon. Members upstairs. I doubt whether a statement of that kind would be as useful as the statement I propose to make verbally upstairs. Perhaps my hon. Friend will await that. I will do anything else I possibly can to meet the situation.

asked the Minister of Transport how many motor lorries there were at Slough and how many have been sold; what steps, if any, are being taken to relieve the congested docks and railways by road transport; if the Depart- ment is organising any other methods of transport; and, if so, under what conditions?

I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to an identical question asked by him on 1st December.

On a point of Order. May I say that the question to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was on the Paper on that date, but was not answered?

I regret very much if that is so, and I will look into it.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that in the waiting-rooms of the North Eastern Railway Company in the Morpeth area there are no fires; and, if so, will he see that during the winter months, in the interest of the public health, fires are made, as the public have to wait over an hour sometimes?

I am in communication with the railway company on this matter, but, as the hon. Member is aware, strict economy in coal consumption is still desirable in the national interest.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the railway settlement, he is aware that Mr. C. E. Barrett, head draughtsman in the engineers department of the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, at Melton Constable, who declined to act as a signalman during the railway strike, and who was summarily dismissed for that action on 30th September, but was ultimately reinstated on 7th October, two days after the strike was settled, has been wrongfully deprived of his salary, amounting to £2 13s. 4d., for the period in question, and has since been boycotted by the engineer and traffic manager and superseded as head draughtsman by a man of less service in the same office, who acted as a guard during the strike and who is now designated engineering assistant; whether he will give instructions for Mr. Barrett to be restored to his full former status in the office and for the portion of his salary that has been wrongfully withheld paid to him; and that no further attempt shall be made to victimise him for declining to act against his fellow workmen during the recent strike?

My attention has already been called to this case. Inquiries are being made.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the slow progress of the negotiations with the railwaymen on the subject of the standardisation of wages, he will take an early opportunity of placing before the public the two points of view; and whether, in any case, he will take steps to avoid a sudden strike being declared without due and adequate warning to the community as a whole?

I must refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough last Thursday.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that when the Midland Railway station was rebuilt about sixteen years ago the principal entrance was removed from Station Street, near Trent Street, to Carrington Street, and that, in order to provide for the public demand and convenience, a special entrance and bridge giving direct access to all platforms was specially constructed, the use of which was uninterruptedly enjoyed until February, 1917; that the reason for closing this entrance was the shortage of men due to the War, and that it was understood the convenience would be restored upon the return of the men, and that there is no justification in the minds of anyone beyond the Midland Railway officials for denying to thousands of the travelling public the right of way they have always enjoyed without interruption; and will he again call upon the Midland Railway Company to reopen this closed exit, as their refusal to accede to his previous request has intensified the feelings of local irritation and ill-feeling?

So far as I am aware the statements in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question are correct, but as he was informed in reply to a question on this subject asked on the 1st July last, the closing of the entrance referred to was not a War measure, but was consequential upon an alteration in the arrangements at Nottingham station with a view to restricting the use of the platforms to ticket solders. I am not prepared to take the action suggested in the last part of the question, and I have not requested the Midland Railway in the sense suggested.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in response to a request signed by a thousand ticket holders at the time it was closed the explanation was given that it was a war measure, and they were appealed to to be patient until Peace returned; and is he aware that the inspector of the Board of Trade who went to the station in order to advise the Ministry visited it at a time when he was not able to judge either of the danger or inconvenience to the public; and is he further aware that I am daily receiving complaints as to this matter?

That is a question of which the hon. Gentleman should give notice.

May I point out that I have asked these questions on two or three previous occasions and the Minister has given no reply to them?

He has always given a reply and it has always been in the negative.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that goods are now being collected by motor lorry from Nottingham station, taken to Basford some three miles away, and then delivered thence by dray back into Nottingham, in many cases passing the doors of the addressees on their journey to Basford; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with this matter?

I am having inquiries made into this matter.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make arrangements to grant facilities to ex-Service men who, owing to the shortage of houses, are compelled to travel by train to their work and who live away from their homes, such as will enable them to obtain week-end tickets at cheaper rates?

In the present financial position, I am unable to extend facilities for cheap week-end travel, and I regret that I should not feel justified in making an exception in the case mentioned.

asked the Prime Minister when His Majesty's Government expects to reach a decision with reference to the old age pensioners who are suffering severely from the high cost of living?

asked the Prime Minister if the Government can see their way to promptly carry through legislation giving effect to the recommendation of the Old Age Pensions Committee, so that the hardships many pensioners are suffering may be relieved before the winter arrives?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unanimous recommendation of the Commission on Old Age Pensions that Poor Law relief shall not be deemed a disqualification for such pensions, the Government will give effect to this recommendation at the earliest possible moment, so as to obviate suffering during this winter period amongst old people owing to the high cost of the necessaries of life?

asked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take with regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Old Age Pensions; and whether, in view of the need for increased allowance, steps can be taken to ensure immediate action?

The Cabinet have already given most careful consideration to this subject and to the recommendations of the Committee. The proposals involve such a large additional expenditure, carrying with it, of course, additional taxation, that the Government are not yet in a position to place their proposals before the House of Commons, but the examination of the subject is being continued by a Cabinet, Committee from day to day, and I hope that I shall be able to announce the decision of the Government before the House rises.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some emergency grant could not be given for the coming winter?

Administratively that would be impossible. I think the House must be satisfied with what I said. We are going into it most closely, but we must take into account, as the House will have to do, the effect of what will be done.

Is it not the fact that the half-crown extra given during the War was given administratively and not by legislative Act?

Yes. I do not think there was any other way of doing it then, but it was a very bad way, because there was no differentiation between the necessities of different cases.

If you give another half-crown wrongly now, would not the two wrongs make a right?

No; the two wrongs would make a double wrong.

I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Prime Minister when a decision is expected as to the future of Albania; whether it is intended to guarantee the independence of that country as agreed to in the Treaty of London, 1913; and whether there is any British military force, British military mission, or British political mission in Albania?

I am unable to state when a decision will be taken with regard to Albania. This must depend upon the decisions of the Peace Conference. It is not correct to say that the independence of Albania was agreed to in the Treaty of London of 30th May, 1913. The reply to the last part of the question is that there is at present a small British Mission at Scutari.

If Albania is not recognised as independent, what is it? Is it part of the ex-Austrian Empire, or the ex-Ottoman Empire, or part of Serbia, or part of Greece?

I should not like to answer that, but it is one of the subjects which the Peace Conference is considering.

If it is to consider Albania, why not Ireland?

asked the Prime Minister why, in view of the fact that the work of the Paris Peace Conference is still incomplete and that there are in many important decisions still to be taken, there is no British Minister of Cabinet rank now in Paris?

The best method for the continuation of the Peace Conference at Paris was carefully considered by the Cabinet, and the existing arrangement was in consequence decided upon.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the memorial addressed by the Roman Catholic, the Unitarian, and the Calvinistic bishops of Koloozvar to the Peace Conference on 8th September last, complaining of the treatment meted out to their respective co-religionists by the Roumanians; and whether any action was taken to remedy the state of affairs so disclosed?

My attention has been called to the memorial addressed to the Peace Conference, who are taking such steps as may be possible for the protection of religious and racial minorities in Transylvania.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to lay before the House any information on this and kindred subjects, so that the House can really form an opinion on these grave incidents which are occurring all over Europe?

It would not be possible to make any statement at present about the negotiations with Roumania. My Noble Friend knows the exact position in which they stand.

I think my right hon. Friend misunderstood my question. did not ask for information as to the negotiations, though I should be very glad if it were possible to give it, but as to the actual facts, as to the, condition prevailing in these various countries. I have reason to know the Government have a great deal of information about it.

I will consider what my Noble Friend has said.

May I ask whether any Mission has been sent to Roumania from this country to inquire into these matters?

I should like to, have notice of that.

asked the Leader of the House if he could give the House any information as to the relations between the Allies and Germany, some intimation of which recently appeared in the daily Press?